-- -- ··- - .**···~** . . .. ·- --· ..

Ms. Sharon White Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office P

. 0

. Box 3090 Carlsbad , New Mexico 88221 

# OCT 2 4 2005

Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave , N. W

. Washington , DC 20460 Subject: Magenta Transmissivity Fact Sheet Dear Ms. White : The enclosed paper was primarily developed in May 2005 to summarize our investigation of early testing of Magenta transmissivity and is being provided in response to a recent request by Mr

. Peake of your staff. If additional information is required, please contact Daryl Mercer of my staff at 505-234-7452

.

Enclosure
cc w/enclosure T. Peake, EPA *ED C. Byrum, EPA ED G. Basabilvazo , CBFO ED R.Patteffion,CBFO ED M. Rigali, SNL ED S. Kouba , WRES ED CBFO M&RC

•eo denotes electronic distribution CBFO:OOD:DM:LR:05-Q688:UFC:2300Sharon White bee: w/enclosure D

. Mercer, CBFO R. Beauheim , SNL

·eo denotes electronic distribution CBFO:OOD : DM:LR :05-0688: UFC:2300 ED ED -2-. ..

### - -- . .... . .. .- - ... .. . --- --· --- -.



### MAGENTA TRANSMISSIVITY FACT SHEET 

# Summary:
In 2000, the DOE thoroughly investigated allegations that were originally raised in the Citizens Against Radioactive Dumping (CARD) lawsuit filed in 1999 challenging the validity ofthe WIPP Disposal Phase Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The DOE investigation concluded that there was no basis to believe that data important to the long-term performance of WIPP had been compromised. The EPA was provided the results ofthe DOE investigation and subsequently conducted their own independent investigation. This paper has been prepared to summarize the DOE evaluation. 

## Background Overlaying WIPP, there are two principal subsurface water bearing zones (the Culebra and the Magenta) that could potentially transport contaminants from an inadvertent drilling intrusion into the WIPP. Such contaminants could find their way to water sources that could be used by either cattle or humans, thus posing the potential for adverse health impacts. The Culebra lies below the Magenta (closer to the repository level) and is more transmissive. Thus, in our model ofa brine release subsequent to a drilling intrusion, the brine (water) tends to flow from the drill hole to and then through the Culebra, since it offers the path ofleast resistance. In scenarios modeled in performance assessment, the brine never even rises to the level ofthe Magenta, which in any case is less permeable and would offer more resistance to outward flow. Some stakeholders believe that the Magenta is filled with holes (karst in geologic terminology), offers less resistance to groundwater flow than the Culebra, and would, therefore, allow more of the repository's contents to be released subsequent to a drilling intrusion than is modeled by the WIPP performance assessment.

## Basis of the Allegations
A WIPP stakeholder found a hand-edited page from a draft hydrology report in USGS files that showed a revision in the transmissivity range for the Magenta Member ofthe Rustler Formation from <1

- 40 ft2 /day to 

### 10-4

- 1 ft2 /day. By comparing the handwriting on the page to a signed, handwritten memo from Jerry Mercer, then a USGS hydrologist, the stakeholder identified Mercer as the person who edited the page. The stakeholder alleges that Mercer's revision was an "act ofdata falsification [that] has steered the entire WIPP hydrologic investigation in a false direction, allowing the DOE to completely ignore the most transmissive aquifer in the immediate vicinity ofthe WIPP waste panels." All this transpired in 1999. 

## Summary of DOE Investigation and Results The transmissivity value of40 ft2/day appears to derive from a preliminary bailing test performed by the USGS on the Magenta in well H-3 in 1977. Later evaluation ofthe data showed that a packer placed in the well to isolate the Magenta from the more transmissive Culebra was leaking during the bailing test, and that the test did not accurately reflect the propert ies ofthe Magenta. From the start, the bailing test was intended to determine whether or not the Magenta could be tested using standard hydr ogeologica l techniques (i.e., slug or pumping tests), not to provide a reliable estimate oftransmissivity. Subsequent to the bailing test, the leaking packer was replaced and a slug test was performed on the Magenta

. The data from this test have never been published, but the test was interpreted by the USGS, and reported to show a transmissivity of0

. 1 ft2 /day in a 1983 report by Mercer. Arrangements are being made with and by the USGS to publish these old data for public consumption

. The allegation ofdata fals ification and misdirection ofthe WIPP hydrology program is utterly erroneous. The Magenta has been tested in 18 WIPP wells, most ofthem since the time ofthe alleged data falsification. In all but two wells, the transmissivity ofthe Magenta has been found to be less than or equal to 1 ft2 /day. The other two wells were tested AFTER Mercer made his revisions, and the correct values for those two wells (53 and 375 ft2/day) were accurately reported in Mercer's 1983 USGS report. The Culebra dolomite has been tested at all ofthe locations where the Magenta has been tested and at many additional locations, and is consistently found to be one or more orders ofmagnitude more permeable than the Magenta

. 

## Detailed Discussion ofAllegations, and DOE's Investigation and Findings:

Allegations A WIPP stakeholder, Dr. R.H. Phillips, gained access to USGS records in Albuquerque in March 1999 under an FOIA request. In the USGS files, he came across a draft hydrology report from approximately 1978 or 1979 that showed handwritten corrections (this was when reports were. ·· ·· ··· ----· - · -· - . 

### - ·

still typed on typewriters) made by Jerry Mercer, then a USGS hydrologist. One page in the report shows a revision in the transmissivity range for the Magenta Member ofthe Rustler Formation from <1

- 40 ft2/day to 104

- 1 ft2/day. Phillips alleges that Mercer's revision was an "act ofdata falsification [that] has steered the entire WIPP hydrologic investigation in a false direction, allowing the DOE to completely ignore the most transmissive aquifer in the immediate vicinity ofthe WIPP waste panels. Jerry Mercer, for his services, was rewarded with ajob at Sandia National Laboratories." Phillips' allegation was contained in a motion filed in the United States District Court for the District ofNew Mexico in June 2000, Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping et al. vs. Bill Richardson, et al. (CIV No. 99-321 JC/WWD). That motion was denied, but another motion was filed in appeal on July 14, 2004, Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping et al. vs. Spencer Abraham, et al. (CIV No. 99-321 ACT/MCA (ACE)). The district court dismissed that motion and subsequently ultimately dismissed all claims against the Federal Government and the private defendants on September 30, 2004. The sole basis ofthe appeal to the l01h Circuit Court ofAppeals from the district court dismissal is the alleged Mercer falsification. Summary of DOE Investigation The report page in question does not seem to correspond to any published USGS or Mercer report or paper. Our investigation identified no published report that contains a substantially similar page. The reported upper value oftransmissivity for the Magenta was shown as 40 ft2 /day in the Geological Characterization Report (GCR; Powers et al., 1978; reprinted as Appendix GCR ofthe CCA) for the WIPP prepared by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). This was later shown as 2 ft2/day in Mercer and Orr (1979). This is similar to the information in the document that was identified by Phillips. A summary ofthe data examined in the investigation ofthis discrepancy in Magenta transmissivity values is set forth below:

1. In April 1977, a bailing and recovery test was performed on the Magenta Member ofthe Rustler Formation in well H-3. At the time ofthe testing, an inflatable packer was placed in the well to separate the Magenta interval from the lower, more permeable, Culebra interval. Thirty bailing runs were made in the well, removing approximately 360 gallons ofwater and causing the water level to drop from only 405.1 to 411.1 ft below land surface. The water level was then monitored for 33 days, during which it rose to 401.3 ft below land surface. Later monitoring showed the Magenta water level to typically be at approximately 250ft, whereas the water level in the lower Culebra interval was typically at approximately 405ft. Given that all ofthe "Magenta" water levels measured at the time ofthe bailing test were typical ofthe Culebra, not the Magenta, we surmise that, in fact, the packer separating the Magenta from the Culebra was leaking during the test. 2. No analysis ofdata collected in April 1977 is documented in any USGS report. However, the GCR (Powers et al., 1978) states (p. 6-36) "Preliminary transmissivity values [for the Magenta] computed by Mercer and Orr (1978) range from 40 ft2/d to less than 1 ft2 /d." In the references section ofthat report, the Mercer and Orr ( 1978) report is identified as a preliminary report submitted by USGS to DOE. 

### It appears to have been a draft version ofthe later Mercer and Orr(1979) report, and may well be the report containing the page edited by Mercer. The published Mercer and Orr (1979) report, however, states (p. 174) "Preliminary values oftransmissivity for the Magenta range from 2 ft2 /day in H-3 to less than 1 ft2 /day in H-1.", but provides no indication ofthe test from which the H-3 value was derived, or the method used for its derivation. The USGS files contain a hand-drawn semilog plot ofthe water-level recovery data following the bailing in April 1977, showing straight-line analysis oftwo segments ofthe data: the first day ofrecovery and the subsequent 32 days. From the data for the first day, a transmissivity of45.44 ft2 /day was inferred. From the data for the last 32 days, a transmissivity of 1.79 ft2/day was inferred. This plot may be the source ofboth the 40 ft2/day ascribed to Mercer and Orr (1978) and the 2 ft2 /day published in Mercer and Orr (1979). In any case, given the anomalous water levels throughout the bailing and recovery test and the suspected connection to the Culebra, no reliable value ofMagenta transmissivity could be inferred. Nor did the USGS ever intend this to be a definitive test

- the purpose ofbailing was to obtain data that would allow design ofa proper hydraulic test. 3. The Mercer (1983) report gives a transmissivity value for the Magenta at H-3 of0.1 

### ft2 /day, with no indication ofthe source ofthe data. However, the USGS files contain full documentation ofa slug test performed on the Magenta in H-3 in May 1979, and also contain a semilog plot ofthe test data with a type-curve match showing a transmissivity estimate of0.12 ft2/day. This slug test provides, by far, the data most suited to a reliable analysis, and appears to be the source ofthe transmissivity value given in Mercer (1983). The Mercer (1983) report also presents Magenta transmissivity values from more wells (12) than had been tested at the time of the Mercer and Orr (1979) report, with a range from 4 x 10-3 to 375 ft2 /day. Hence, far from concea ling the "true" range ofMagenta transmissivity values as alleged by Phillips, the USGS openly expanded the range as additional data became available. 4. Since the Mercer (1983) report, SNL has tested the Magenta in six additional wells, and also retested the Magenta at H-3 in 1989. From the tests in H-3, Beauheim et al. (1991) inferred Magenta transmissivity values between 0.14 and 0. 18 ft2 /day. The highest Magenta transmissivity measured by SNL on the WIPP site is 0

.38 ft2/day (Beauheirn and Ruskauff, 1998). 5. Mr. Mercer left the USGS in 1984 to take ajob with SNL, where he is still employed

. 6. The Culebra dolomite has been tested at all ofthe locations where the Magenta has been tested and at many additional locations, and is consistently found to be one or more orders of magnitude more permeable than the Magenta. Hence, the WIPP project has appropriately focused more attention on the characterization ofthe Culebra than on the Magenta. 

## References: Beauheim, R.L., and G.J. Ruskauff. 1998. Analysis of Hydraulic Tests of the Culebra and Magenta Dolomites andDewey Lake Redbeds Conducted at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site. SAND98-0049. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.Beauheim, R.L., T.F. Dale, and J.F. Pickens. 1991. Interpretations of Single-Well Hydraulic Tests of the Rustler Formation Conducted in the Vicinity of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site, 1988-1989. SAND89-0869. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. Mercer, J

.W

. 1983. Geohydrology ofthe Proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site, Los Medaiios Area, Southeastern New Mexico. Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4016. Albuquerque, NM: US Geological Survey

. Mercer, J.W., and B.R. Orr. 1979. Interim Data Report on the Geohydrology of the Proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Site, Southeast New Mexico. Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-98. Albuquerque, NM: US Geological Survey. Powers, D .W., S.J. Lambert, S.-E. Shaffer, L.R. Hill, and W.D. Weart, eds. 1978. Geological Characterization Report, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Site, Southeastern New Mexico. SAND78-1596, Volume II

. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.